Sorry...But no comparison.
The difference between the ACLU and the HRCP is that in the US, the ACLU swims
WITH societal current while in Pakistan, the HRCP swims
AGAINST societal current.
Take religious freedom, for example.
In the US, Americans believes in religious freedoms long before the ACLU came into existence. No, that evolution was not perfect, and in some respect, that journey needed an organization like the ACLU to keep Americans focused on the original idea of what make a country free from religious oppression. Today, the ACLU had to imagine religious oppression, or at least perceived oppression, in order to justify its going after things like suing stores that uses 'Merry Christmas' instead of 'Happy Holidays'. Whereas in Pakistan, what would happen if a Muslim accuses a Christian of 'desecrating' a Quran ? The Christian will most likely be dead before the HRCP can respond with its condemnation. There are all kinds of social, religious, and political issues that the HRCP have to fight against the people and their beliefs that really have no parallel in the US, at least not in this era, anyway. The HRCP do not have to imagine any issue to justify its needed existence while the ACLU in the US -- does.
and what you imply I agree with regarding the General's ideals. But at the same time, when you talk of clueless people discussing US policies one also has to look to congress where elected representatives exist who genuinely believe that the earth is 10000 years old.. and these people help MAKE policy.
Please...
When I called someone 'clueless' about an issue, it is about the details of said issues, not of his/her general beliefs about the universe. But let us say that US Senator Joe Redneck is a literal interpreter of the Bible, how does that affect his analyses of Bremer's decision to disband the Iraqi Army ? No effects at all. But if you want to go there, what about djinns or the seven levels of heaven that Muslims believes in ?
Your fixation with the idea that somehow Pakistans actions, Pakistani policies or any third world policies are some yardstick to judge the United States by.. or should always be kept in mind whenever US policies are discussed seems a rather defeatist ideal. What possible comparison does the United States have with any 3rd world country to offer it as a counter example just for the heck of avoiding a debate on its policies?
Only if the person want to call US 'stupid' in making so-and-so decision. Calling US 'stupid' automatically imply that there is a smarter choice. I would like to know, not only what are those other choices, but how did that person came up with that argument. How would Pakistan or Japan or Russia could have done differently and produce a superior outcome.
Decisions have consequences and often leaders changes before those consequences came into being. If a Pakistani want to call US 'stupid' for the decision to disband the Iraqi Army, would that same person call Pakistan 'stupid' for getting involved with the US-Pakistan-Saudi triad after the Soviet invaded Afghanistan ? Decisions have consequences, correct ? Now one of them is that the Taliban have effective control of large parts of Pakistan and the Pakistani government is relatively helpless about it. But what were the alternatives back then for Pakistan ? Would doing nothing produce a different and more favorable outcome ? Who knows ? Plenty of Pakistanis would argue that 'Who knows ? ' and support that alliance. They would not call that decision 'stupid' but have no problems calling US 'stupid' for making our decisions in events that they know little to nothing of the details.
In either case, the General's contention is not incorrect, but there is no edict to take that as the final word and not discuss his conclusions further.
Please...
Dismissing whatever we argued in our defense as 'whitewash' is discussion ?
